Here's what there is a real shortage of: likes for this post, which deserves all the likes in the universe. Condescending progressive cultural imperialism is such an underappreciated problem, both for human health and long-run for the environment. This "progressive" punishment of developing countries for continuing to use fossil fuels reminds me of earlier efforts to ban effective pesticides like DDT in southeast Asia and Africa, but only after malaria had conveniently been eradicated in Europe and North America. Both also get tied up with flawed Malthusian reasoning about how the environment can't afford for the poors with their high birth rates using resources like developed Westerners do, ignoring the fact that birth rates are down everywhere, including in the developing world, and the key thing that drives birthrates down is that an increase in material well-being leading to more surviving babies. (Of course, declining birth rates is its own problem--but one that Team Climate Apocalypse seems unaware of.)

I will also note that this woke refusal the recognize that the climate concerns of a Malawian mother are different than those of Greta Thunberg basically pushes developing economies into the arms of China, which is much less judgmental about whether one uses cooking gas. Western progressives can have their moral purity in cutting off funding to places that use fossil fuels, but that doesn't mean that China will follow suit. Is that what Western progressives want: the same or more fossil fuel use as there would have been in developing economies, but with the added feature of those economies becoming vassal states of China?